Why is prejudice against lazy people still acceptable?

Comms69

TyreLever wrote: »

Some people are religious, or vegetarian. Apparantly its not acceptable to be prejudiced against them, but it is OK to be against laziness. If someone really hates work then who are we to judge? Leave em on the dole I say, keeps em out of they way anyway. Some people really don't have the mindset for work life and could be considered a form of mental health issue.

Laziness is only bad when people are forced to work and then end up not doing a good job because as I mentioned, they lack the mindset to make a good worker. I think the dole is overly harsh in handing out sanctions. Its not like dole is giving people a great living anyway.

It's ok to discriminate against ANYONE in a personal capacity. But certain laws prevent discrimination based upon 10 principles in certain circumstances.

Comms69

Twopints wrote: »

Usually a protected characteristic relates to a minority. :beer:

No it doesn't, in the slightest. Common misconception.

Manxman_in_exile

Twopints wrote: »

Usually a protected characteristic relates to a minority. :beer:

I remember reading an article at university which pointed out that the normal distribution of IQ scores is skewed so that the median score is significantly less than 100! :rotfl:


(The above comment should be considered neutral in reference to the value or otherwise of IQ scores, and the word "significantly" is used in a rhetorical rather than statistical context).

Manxman_in_exile

Comms69 wrote: »

No it doesn't, in the slightest. Common misconception.

I did wonder about sex (sorry, "gender") discrimination.


I presume one sex (sorry, "gender") outnumbers the other.

Comms69

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I did wonder about sex (sorry, "gender") discrimination.


I presume one sex (sorry, "gender") outnumbers the other.

I think worldwide it's around 53% women 47% men.


But obviously that fluctuates.

Comms69

I saw a poster at work, which (having obviously gone through several approvals) said:


We'd like to hear from anyone protected by the equality act. - so that's everyone then?

TELLIT01

I'm not prejudiced against lazy people, so long as they stay out of my way and don't claim benefits they can be as idle as they like.

GothicStirling

If you want to be lazy, fine. Just don't expect the taxpayer to fund your lifestyle.

tazwhoever

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I must admit this OP brought a smile to my face!


I've often wondered (seriously!) why being stupid isn't a protected characteristic...

Thanks - I smiled too!

Malthusian

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I remember reading an article at university which pointed out that the normal distribution of IQ scores is skewed so that the median score is significantly less than 100!

The median IQ score should be 100 by definition. That's how the scale is calibrated. Are you sure it wasn't the mean that was below 100?

Einstein (who should know a thing or two about intelligence) said that intelligence is finite but stupidity is infinite; if the extremes of stupidity are greater than the extremes of intelligence, this would mean the mean intelligence is very likely to be below the median. If you have a 4 foot dwarf, a 5"9 Mr Average and a 6"6 giant, the dwarf pulls the mean height of the group (5 foot 5) below the median (5 foot 9).

Which is why smug people who bang on about the Dunning-Kruger effect and scoff at opinion polls showing that the majority of people believe themselves to be smarter than average are revealing their own stupidity. The majority of people are perfectly correct to believe that they are smarter than average, given that the most common (and useful) definition of "average" is the mean.